Liberal or Leftist?

In a recent post, I proposed that we, the anti-Obamunist camp, desist from playing the game of public-opinion polls. I would like to add another proposal: Cease using the term “liberal” to refer to the opposition.

Using this word bestows an undeserved upgrade. Every time it leaves one’s mouth, the entire movement represented by such luminaries as B. Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, and Nancy Pelosi receives an unintended compliment. This is because the ideology of these people bears only the slightest resemblance to what was known in a bygone era as “liberal.”

What does liberal really mean? The most basic connotation is liberality in overall conduct, a sort of generosity, as in “he gave a liberal portion of ice cream to each child.” Well then, you say, what about the Left’s incessant doling out of goodies to innumerable recipients? Isn’t this liberal?

The answer is no. A case could be made that the liberals of yesteryear really did behave with true generosity. Over the decades, however, this aspect has perished. One has only to consider the now-routine printing of non-existent money (i.e., from pure debt) to spend on political payoffs, such as the hodgepodge of bogus “stimulus” projects. This is a type of theft, nothing more. The generosity is an illusion; a sleight-of-hand.

The same rule applies to the “liberality” of open borders. Like the distribution of artificial money, it appears to be generous, but in fact it is merely a tool for the imposition of socialism. In true leftist fashion, the “oppressed,” in this case illegal aliens, are selected as clients for the sole purpose of furthering an agenda. I ask myself: Are there no poor people in Arizona who suffer from the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws? Doesn’t the “working class” have its rights infringed and its standard of living reduced? Why do the “liberals” not care? Answer: They are not liberal.

This is nothing new. I found in Gibbon an interesting case of liberality decaying into theft and corruption. Under the reign of the Roman emperor Caracalla (211-217 AD),

a most important edict….communicated to all the free inhabitants of the empire the name and privileges of Roman citizens. [Caracalla’s] unbounded liberality flowed not, however, from the sentiments of a generous mind; it was the sordid result of avarice, and will naturally be illustrated by some observations of the finances of that state.

Gibbon goes on to describe a situation of insolvency and waste that could easily be a summary of the Obama administration’s budgetary policy.

Another erstwhile meaning of liberal was a belief in liberty—as the very word liberal implies. Remember the good old days when liberals asserted that freedom of speech meant freedom of speech for everyone, even non-leftists? Fast forward to the contemporary political arena. Who but the would-be inheritors of liberalism are the champions of affirmative action and political correctness, perhaps the greatest challenge to civil liberties and equal protection of the law this country has ever faced? Who sets up Stalinist “human rights commissions” to squelch freedom of expression? Who wants to institute the “Fairness Doctrine”? The president from which party complains that the information sources of the citizenry are too diversified?

A key litmus test is a person’s attitude to equality. For the true liberal, everyone should have the same rights under the law, with the same chance to pursue their goals. This is known as equality of opportunity. For the leftist, equality means absolute equality, or, as it is often called, equality of results. In other words, all humans should have the same attributes, own the same property, benefit from the same credentials, receive the same grades in college, etc.

Among Obamunists, the choice is always equality of results. The truly liberal notions have been purged.

Liberal also used to signify a belief in economic liberty; that is, the free market. Adam Smith was considered a liberal. In Europe, even today, the word has largely preserved this meaning. In France, the term libéral tumbles from the mouth of a leftist with the appropriate expression of disgust. After all, he’s referring to a greedy capitalist, a lackey of American imperialism.

Lastly, the liberal of old did not consider it a matter of principle to try and degrade his country’s national security. One could be liberal and support a strong military, and even serve with great distinction (as did JFK, for example). Once again, those who campaign ceaselessly against the foundations of national defense—not to mention the traitors who reveal classified material—are leftists, through and through.

Let us strike “liberal” from our vocabulary, unless referring to the various authentic meanings of the word. Our Obamunist adversaries are leftist revolutionaries, pure and simple. As Thomas Bertonneau and others have shown, the contemporary leftist subscribes to a form of gnostic religion that is based on an irrational rejection of reality. It is thoroughly totalitarian, and has nothing to do with liberality, freedom, liberty, or an interest in the well-being of mankind.

[Quote taken from Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (vol. I), New York, Heritage Press, 1946, pp 123-4.]